Illinois corruption coverage still mentions New Jersey

This week as the story of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich looking to sell Barack Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder broke, I expected to see plenty of coverage of the history of political corruption in Chicago. I have always thought that the Chicago political machine represented the worst political corruption of all the 50 states (or 57 if you are Barack Obama). But I was wrong.

Apparently, New Jersey is considered one of the elite for political corruption(from the AP):

If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, it's certainly one hell of a competitor," Chicago FBI chief Robert D. Grant said when the charges were announced against Blagojevich.

The top competitors seem to be New Jersey and Louisiana. More than 130 public officials in New Jersey have been found guilty of federal corruption in the past seven years. And Louisiana more than holds its own. A congressman once described the state this way: "Half of Louisiana is under water, and the other half is under indictment."

And this article is not the only one that mentions New Jersey while discussing this scandal. It seems like our state has a lot in common with a series of corruption scandals are the country:

1. While the scandals cut across both parties, they Democrats are the current hands on winners for sheer numbers. In New Jersey, almost all of the 130 corruption convictions the past few years were Democrats.

2. The stupidity associated with this current crop of corrupt politicians is amazing. Selling a senate seat while under investigation for corruption with Tony Rezco(Blagojevich), Cash in the freezer (Jefferson)and tax fraud in at least two states and one foreign country followed by pay to play with donations(Rangel).

3. When the politician in trouble is a Republica, you can count on the media to mention the word Republican over and over again. When a Democrat gets caught, party is rarely if ever mentioned.

4. The media outrage is comical if not pathetic as it concerns the two parties. It wasn't that long ago that the media was in a frenzy over Foley's instant messages (he was never charged with any crime), Tom Delay's airplane rides and Larry Craig's foot tapping. But they can't seem to whip up any interest in William Jefferson's freezer bags of cash, Chris Dodd's sweetheart deal on his mortgage while ignoring his oversight responsibility for the mortgage mess, an army of Democrats running Fannie/Freddie into the ground.

Some day, it will be great when the people have the last word. I know it will happen at the Federal level because it always does. I have a lot less confidence that New Jersey voters will ever wake up and realize the corruption that they accept every day in this state is neither normal nor acceptable in a civilized society.

---

Hey...Where's my bailout?

As I watch the steady progression of business people march on Washington to apply for their bailout, I am starting to really question my own sanity. For example, we have had:

1. Investment banks
2. Insurance companies
3. Mortgage banks
4. Auto companies
5. States

And they have all lined up at the trough to get money from....you and me.

Well, I work plenty of hours a week. I am a platinum traveller in my job. I pay my bills including my mortgage and didn't take a loan I couldn't afford. My financial wellbeing has been damaged by:

1. Politicians in congress like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who wanted people who could not afford houses to get loans they couldn't afford.
2. Barney Frank having a "personal" relationship with an executive that completely screwed the taxpayer....(I will reisist the rest)
3. A market that has now collapsed and sent my 401k through the floor

Where is my bailout? Better be careful congress. It is almost time for pitchforks and fire.

---

Corzine responds to financial crisis!

---

Orson Scott Card - A Democrat on the Economic Crisis and the Media

By Orson Scott Card October 5, 2008

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.

---

The Great Obama Coverup

I continue to be amazed at the level of active campaigning being done by the mainstream media in this presidential election. Time and time again, both candidates don't seem to get the same treatment and yet it is accepted by everyone as status quo. Yesterday, a McCain supporter expressed he outrage. This is happening because regular people are frustrated that this has degenerated to something far less than a fair fight. And mark my words, someone (likely the print media first is going to pay and pay big).

Need examples? McCain is tagged with the economic problems despite attempting to reform the system that caused them. Obama accepted major campaign contributions directly from the corrupt institutions second only to Chris Dodd. No questions asked of Obama by the media. The story? McCain is erratic because he went back to DC and tried to do something (he should have known that is much easier to be "present").

Obama's campaign war chest has been feathered by massive donation fraud. Basic checks have not been made to verify donors. This includes gibberish typed from a computer keyboard and numerous Dallas Cowboys without valid addresses. Any questions of Obama? No. But there have been plenty of questions about McCain having someone who was once a lobbyist in his campaign.

Obama is clearly a byproduct of a "go along get along" corrupt Chicago political establishment. As a matter of fact, his defense to his connections with Weather Underground Terrorist William Ayers (as told to Michael Smerconish yesterday on 1210 in Philadelphia) was that he was just a guy who was part of the political establishment that he worked with in Chicago. He made a long term habit of voting "present" in the legislature. He has stood for and continues to stand for nothing. But he is a transformational candidate. And no one asks questions about it.

During Obama's time in Chicago he touts being a "community organizer". Funny thing is that an organization he trained, ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) is right this minute under investigation in 11 states for voter fraud. Has anyone asked Obama about this? Nope. The story? Republicans are trying to suppress turnout.

Joe Biden sounded really good in his debate last week. The trouble is, virtually every single thing he said was not just shading of the truth, but an outright lie. And the story? Sarah Palin winked.

Barack Obama in this week's debate couldn't wait to highlight his man of the people meme about how he would cut taxes to 95% of the people in the United States(paid for by the 5% who will see a tax increase). Trouble is, 40% of the people in the United States do not pay taxes at all due to the Bush Tax Cuts. So in reality, Obama just announced a massive welfare payment payed for by the small business establishment stupid enough to be in his top 5%. Any questions by the media? Nope. The story? McCain is taxing healthcare (a convenient lie by Obama who leaves out that McCain has proposed a credit that would more than offset any tax on the premium).

And then the whoppers. I cannot even count the disgusting and nasty rhetoric that come from direct Obama spokespeople, supporters and media people in regard to McCain and Palin. McCaskill, Reid, Axelrod and hollywood celebrities all spewing negative bile ("I hate McCain" Harry Reid, "McCain injecting race into this election" Axelrod, "That is one crazy b*tch" Betty White). And NOT ONE time does Obama tell his own people to tone it down. As a matter of fact, you can probably collect dozens of these kinds of insults each week for the past two years. And does the media report on that? No. They report that someone referred to Barack Obama by his middle name, Hussein. And Obama then goes on the radio and says McCain should tone it down.

If Obama gets elected and a flood of bad news comes down the pike that should have been reported beforehand, it may be time for a real revolution against the mainstream media. While I would be extremely sad to see an institution like General Motors go out of business, I would not blink an eye if the New York Times ceased to exist.

---

We need a Mortgage Crisis Special Prosecutor!

I don't think that there is anyone out there that is all that happy right now about the economic situation and the mortgage crisis. And whether you are for Obama or McCain, you are seriously angry over what is going on. Obama is sitting in the background wallowing in the positive energy of what he feels is his advantage over the economy. That has been true. So far. Many voters would still like an explanation over what he did to receive the second highest political donation from Fannnie and Freddie. And McCain is probably toast because he can't seem to articulate why he had this one right. And frankly, conservatives are tired of a president who cannot articulate in a clear and compelling manner.

Tonight, I was watching O'Reilly and one of his guests was Ben Stein. Ben finished his financial analysis with what he said were "two words". Special Prosecutor.

I agree with Ben. We all know that the media doesn't want to do anything to hurt the Obama campaign. And we all know that really exposing what certain Democrats have done to destroy this country (Dodd and Frank) while enriching themselves would hurt Obama. So fine. Let them leave the story alone.

But let's ask each candidate whether or not they support a special prosecutor to investigate this mess. And we should ask them now and get is started now. Before the election.

---

Corzine calls for budget cuts! A Step in the right direction.

From Bloomberg.com:

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine directed state department heads last month to prepare to trim their budgets by 5 percent in the event revenue for the fiscal year falls short.

The fact that the Governor has finally weighed in is a good sign for New Jersey and out potential to avoid another massive tax increase because of the mortgage crisis. He should have been out in front of this. But it doesn't minimize the importance that he finally did.

New Jersey's budget for the fiscal year that began July 1 reduced spending by $600 million to cope with an expected drop in tax collections. The financial crisis goes beyond what the state planned for, Corzine said earlier this month. Democratic and Republican lawmakers have since called on the governor to consider mid-year cuts.

``The seriousness of these issues probably will require that what we began on August 20 as contingency plans will have to go forward,'' Corzine said. ``I don't think this is going to be an easy process, but it is a necessary one. We have the requirement to balance our budgets.''

Mr Governor. Cut now and cut big. This is an unprecedented crisis that will force New Jersey government to live within its means. The shore housing market is almost sure to collapse and if the entire state doesn't get serious, we will have a major problem. And while you are at it Mr Governor, just say no to the new borrowing you have planned for the corrupt Schools Construction Corporation. It will send a sign that you are serious.

Lead Mr Governor, lead.

---

An excellent new ad! Check it out.

No commentary necessary.

/a>

---

Pelosi's Follies

Let's be clear to all reading this on where you should concentrate your own research efforts in regard to the bailout bill. Both parties came together to craft a (frankly poor - my opinion) bill that raids taxpayers pockets. But many were ready to hold their nose and vote to help the markets.

Several things then happened to change the game.

1. Pelosi majority whip didn't whip (major warning sign to Republicans)
2. Pelosi then took the House floor and fixed blame on the Republicans. We have discussed this topic on NJ Tax Revolution and it is clear that at the least this problem was caused by both parties. At worst it should tilt in the Democrats favor.
3. Republicans can count votes. Pelosi gave permission to her caucus to vote their conscience while expecting Republicans to bail her caucus out.
4. Republicans caught wind and voted their conscience too.
5. The measure was defeated.

That's what happened. No more. No less.

---

Bailout is not the only option!

There was buzz the other day about a large number of economists that sent a letter to the congress suggesting that there was a better way to handle the mortgage crisis. Now today, Jeffrey Miron a Senior Lecturer of Economics at Harvard explains what the content of that communication included (from CNN):

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This represents well understood fact except for Democrats in the House and Senate (and much of the media as well). This statement really brings the issue home:

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

So what to do?

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

A massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to Wall Street isn't the only answer. And congress should do their job and investigate every potential option with an eye toward the bill paying taxpayer first and Wall Street executives second.

Read the entire article here.

---

For once, our House members attempt to vote for us

There is nothing more infuriating in this state than the party line voting that occurs in the House and Senate. For example, our Senators Menendez and Lautengerg ALWAYS go along with Harry Reid and the Democraticv leadership of the Senate regardless of the harm to NJ. But for once, the members of the House used their brains and made a judgement call. From this article in Newaday:

The majority of New Jersey's U.S. House delegation joined their colleagues in voting down a $700 billion rescue plan for the nation's financial system on Monday, with some saying it didn't help regular people while others complained it wasted taxpayer dollars.

Stocks were falling on Wall Street even before the House voted 228-205, with New Jersey's delegation voting 7-6 against the bill.

Party lines broke down as Democrats and Republicans alike voted against the bailout, even as their party leadership and President Bush warned the economy could plummet into recession without it. The Garden State congressmen voting against the bill included four Republicans and three Democrats.

I don't care if any of these politicians voted for or against right now. I am impressed with all for attempting to do what they thought was right. Bravo to all on both side of this issue. Bravo!

---

Democrats like root causes - view this video

>

---

Nancy Pelosi can shut off the lights/cameras of congress on drilling but can't pass a bailout bill without Republican help?

A very interesting question. Why is it that the Republicans cannot even get an amendment to a bill to the floor when Czar Nancy wields the gavel are now awash with so much power in the House that a bailout bill can't go through? Doesn't anyone remember Nancy Pelosi shutting off the cameras and lights while the Republicans kept debating energy policy when the Democrats went on vacation?

But now, all of a sudden, she can't get a bill through without a small band of conservative legislators in the House? Oh I get it. It is because there were only about 4 votes from Republicans and the bill would have gone through as a piece of partisan Democrat legislation. Apparently, the Democrats do have some level of shame.

For you see, this bill has been crafted by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. Remember these two. Chris Dodd got more money than anyone from Fannie and Freddie to look the other way while they continued to write bad loans. Chris Dodd also got a sweetheart deal from Countrywide as a "friend of Angelo". In most states, Chris Dodd would be in jail. But not in the senate. Oh, and don't forget Barney Frank. These are the people who are leading the bailout:



And even Nancy Pelosi knows that the media will not protect her if Nancy along with her Democrat colleagues were major contributors to the problem, failed in their oversight responsibility and enacted a flawed bailout with no opposition support. Even Nancy isn't that stupid apparently. Harry Reid on the other hand...

---

Freddie, Fannie and the Sub-Prime Crisis-Obamonopoly

---

When Businesses are Failing... Raise the Minimum Wage?

Governor Corzine, I don't get it. According to the Courier Post Online, your reaction to the current financial crisis includes an increase of the minimum wage.

Among the proposals discussed:

Forming a syndicate of small banks and lenders to extend credit to small and mid-sized businesses and help homeowners fend off foreclosure.

Jump-starting infrastructure projects such as schools.

Luring businesses by touting New Jersey's real estate assets.

Raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

Partnering with utility companies to create jobs in energy conservation.

I thought that when the economy is bad, we want to make it easier for businesses to survive. I can see the appeal of extending unemployment benefits, but giving people more money for the same work? Really? How exactly will that help?

---

Obama needs to remind Corzine that panels are the oldest Washington stunt!

From Newsday.com:

Gov. Jon Corzine says he'll convene a special panel to assess ongoing uncertainty in the national economy and its impact on New Jersey.

The economic round-table will occur Monday.

Corzine said he'll assemble business, labor and economic representatives from throughout the state. The goal is to develop an immediate action plan.

But I thought that this was the oldest Washington stunt in the book? Apparently, Obama's buddy and economic advisor Jon Corzine didn't get the memo.

---

Menendez economic plan - more of the same tripe

Robert Menendex has put his hat in the ring for amateur economist today. He has a three part plan to fix our economic problems. From the AP via amNewYork:

Menendez said three steps can help right away:

_ Help prevent foreclosures by enabling bankruptcy judges to modify loan terms so homeowners' primary residences are protected.

_ Create an emergency loan program to help jump-start small businesses having trouble finding credit.

_ Offer a second economic stimulus package to create jobs and prevent cuts in essential services by funding infrastructure projects and some form of unemployment insurance extension.

Let's analyse the Senator's plan. His first pillar is to extend foreclosures on bad loans. Does he not get the the toxic balance sheets caused by these loans is what is dragging down many firms? Did they not teach him any basics when he joined the Senate Banking Committee? Oh, that's right. He learned how to get money from the firms that caused this problem-Fannie and Freddie ($31,250). These bad loans need to be purged from the system. I am sorry that some people will be hurt and if he wants to help them, he should provide transition funding to find a rental place to live.

His emergency loan program makes a bit more sense if money is completely dried up for small business. I am not sure that is the case. I have seen no evidence that money was not available for sound business loans. But at least this is a good example of anticipatory planning and worthy.

His third example is to stimulate the economy through make-work jobs and government handouts. It reminds me of a recent road project near my house. The State of New Jersey and the Federal government teamed up to spend close to 21.5 million dollars to create a road that makes life slightly easiers for truckers at a rest stop near the turnpike and created a traffic jam by adding a jug handle. The project was frankly unneeded and unneccesary.

---

Is it time for Chris Dodd to resign?

We have heard all about Freddie Mae and Freddia Mac. We have heard all about how there is so much greed on Wall Street that clearly we need more regulation. Senator Barack Obama has on multiple occasions in the past few days bemoaned the lack of regulation by the Bush Administration in regard to regulating Wall Street.

However, we theoretically do have oversight on banking and on lending. It is called the US Senate Banking Committee which Senator Dodd is the Chairman. He is also the number one recipient of lobbying funds by the organizations that he was supposed to oversee. But wait, he is not satisfied to just stand on the sidelines now. He expressed his opinion today (Reuters):

U.S. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd on Friday warned the Bush administration that it must work with Congress this weekend on details of a Wall Street bailout package that has not been fully unveiled to lawmakers.

"None of us have any idea what the details are," said Dodd, adding that the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve should not present a package next week as a "fait accompli."

Why Mr Dodd? So you can make sure your currupt backside is covered? I don't think so. Resign now to reduce the damage to your party. You are now a liability and if you don't resign soon, Senator Barack Obama will have to explain why he is right behind you in lobbyist contributions and an active participant in this massive economic failure.

---

Pelosi Orders Wall Street Probe - here is my list of witnesses.

From Politico:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has ordered a broad, swift investigation of Wall Street and will demand testimony from Bush administration officials and captains of finance, congressional officials said

Let's help out with the witness list:

1. Franklin Raines
2. Jamie Gorelick
3. Chris Dodd
4. Barack Obama
5. Joe Biden
6. Andrew Coumo
7. William Jefferson Clinton
8. Hillary Clinton
9. John Kerry
10. Jim Johnson

And here is what you should ask. For all the former Democrat appointees from the Clinton administration, ask them why they lined their pockets while creating an environment that destroyed the mortgage industry in the United States by purposely breaking down the controls for mortgage lending to non-qualified buyers. And ask the politicians on this list what thhey received for the tens of thousands of donations they received from their corrupt friends.

After you are done with that, sure, go to Wall Street. But I suspect you won't have to or want to.

---

Pelosi as usual takes no responsibility!

Despite mounds of evidence that the Democrats created the environment that created the mortgage crisis, actively fed and watered it with their corrupt friends and then personally benefitted from their lack of oversight a wink and a nod and some campaign contributions, their leaders refuse to take any responsibility.

From TheHIll:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”

Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement” of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation.

“I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi told MSNBC.

You are right Nancy. We are tired of your blaming the mortgage companies alone for a situation that you bought and paid for. You know the greed I recognized from this situation? Franklin Raines (Clinton White House Budget director and Obama consultant) received 100 million dollars in greed money before he got caught. How about Democratic operative Jamie Gorelick who received 25 million FOR HER LACK OF OVERSIGHT!

Nancy Pelosi is a partisan hack who is in way over her head. She has presided over the most unpopular congress in the history of the United States. She has accomplished nothing and blames everyone else for her failures. She is nothing more or less than an empty suit and our country is worse for it.

---

Lehman and the mortgage crisis-Obama points finger...at himself.

We have all heard Barack Obama tell the world that he is a new kind of politician who "doesn't accept special interest money". That claim has always been dubious to me as fundraising statistics clearly show this to be untrue. But I figured that maybe he doesn't include unions and other organized labor donors in his definition of "special". But that apparently isn't the entire story. This morning, Barack Obama said this(from the AP):

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Monday the upheaval on Wall Street was "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression" and blamed it on policies that he said Republican rival John McCain supports.

"This country can't afford another four years of this failed philosophy," Obama said after the shock-wave announcements that financial giant Lehman Brothers was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy while titan Merrill Lynch was being bought by Bank of America for about $50 billion.

So, it's greedy CEO's, John McCain and Republicans that are the problem? Maybe not as this report from the Heritage Foundation makes perfectly clear:

In what some observers are calling a reshaping of Wall Street, two of the world’s largest investment banks, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, are set to disappear. Lehman has announced it will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America. For all the complicated financial instruments and relationships involved in the current financial turmoil, the underlying cause is still relatively simple: the bursting of the housing bubble.

Ok. Step one is for Mr Obama to understand that the mortgage crisis caused this problem. But what drove the mortgage crisis?

When President Bill Clinton took office, Fannie and Freddie were viewed as “key” to Clinton’s plans to expand home ownership. The Washington Post reports: “The result was a period of unrestrained growth for the companies. … The companies increasingly were seen as the engine of the housing boom.” As the companies grew, conservatives repeatedly warned that their size posed a systemic risk to the financial system. As Sarah Palin put it, thanks to the implicit federal guarantee of their debt, Fannie and Freddie had become too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.

So, this clearly had double benefits for the Democrats. It drove economic expansion and allowed politicians to say more people owned homes (whether or not they could afford them is a different story). But how did this problem keep brewing for so long?

But Fannie and Freddie pushed back hard, turning to friends on the left for protection. Former Walter Mondale and Barack Obama campaign adviser James Johnson led a fierce lobbying campaign to fight reform of Freddie and Fannie. Clinton administration OMB director Franklin Raines told investors when he was Fannie Mae CEO in 1999: “We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks.” Fannie and Freddie’s lobbying power over the left continues to be strong to this day. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top three recipients of campaign donations from Freddie and Fannie’s PACs and employees are all Democrats. From 1989 through today, Sen. Chris Dodd received $165,400, Barack Obama $126,349, and John Kerry $111,000. The Washington Post concludes: “Blessed with the advantages of a government agency and a private company at the same time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their windfall profits to co-opt the politicians who were supposed to control them.”

Barack Obama should shut up for two reasons and avoid sticking his foot into his mouth on this topic. The first reason is that he and his fellow Democrats have their hands deep in this mess. As a matter of fact, to date the one person who has had to accept government settlement terms to avoid being convicted of defrauding investors is Franklin Raines (Clinton's former White House Budget Director). The second reason Obama should refrain is that to keep talking is to show what a complete hypocrite he is on the special interest issue. It took Chris Dodd 20 years to get his share of the loot. Obama almost caught up in three. It is Obama himself whose hands are not just dirty, they are filthy. McCain for the record received less than 1/6th the amount Obama did from this quasi-government mortgage and lobbying entity.

Again, who is at fault here?

---